Friday, October 19, 2012

SLOW LIGHT & UFOs


Bill Chalker wrote the other day. He's contemplating making a review of so-called "solid light" UFO cases, and I welcome that. Bill's a hard-science-trained UFOlogist and might just be able to make some sense of a real puzzlement in this field. He asked me if I'd scour my files for such cases [since I'd foolishly admitted to having around 44 of such things], and so I did, making a list for him to pursue and build his analysis more robustly [Bill already had a bigger bunch than that].

Since the blog was sitting here drowsing away the time, I thought that it wouldn't be entirely a waste for me to put that list up here and BS a bit about this phenomenon in anticipation of Bill's better ideas. So, like it or not, here it is.


It's of some value to try to define this concept, since it certainly is not obvious what we're talking about.

In my understanding the term "solid light" came from witness testimony--- the light beam seemed "solid"; it was as if the beam extended like a solid tube, etc. This phrase stuck but is probably a bad one. The light effects that we're witnessing in these cases behave not like solids but like "regular" light which is abnormally "contained" somehow. Things don't seem to be "impacted" by these beams, only illuminated by them. The things [generally] seem to be more like spatially-constrained lasers [admittedly of wide diameter] than anything solid, and might well be more like tubes [i.e. hollow] than "full" beams. In the above definition, Keul has a fairly wide net that he throws to encompass many varieties of weird light UFO cases, and the reader may decide for oneself what sorts of things you want to include. In my list, I include mainly cases wherein the light behaves in a severely delimited space, moves slowly, and usually is seen to have a definite ["sawed-off"] end to the "beam".

Here's the first page: As you can see, there are two huge cases in this 14. Red Bluff is bullet-proof and as such anchors the phenomenon unassailably. Trancas is one of the wildest cases in the files by almost any measure. If it is true, then virtually anything is possible with light-manipulation. Bairnesville is a case with a Jim McDonald interview alongside the Ozzie field research. Connersville has a claim of what would have to be a tractor beam. The 1939 claim was reported very late unfortunately, but at least has as its investigator one of UFOlogy's best, Jenny Randles. The Brazil case is a "Light elevator" carrying entities.

The second 14 feature a good Ozzie case [Kiama] about which I wrote a kidding remark to Bill when I made this list for him [so I've covered it up with something slightly more serious]. The famous Scandinavian cases of Haderslev and Imjarvi [light curtain beneath UFO and light elevator, respectively]. Randlett is a great "anchor" case investigated by Frank Salisbury. Newton, GA was investigated by Hynek. Ellezelles is intriguing as it appeared smack in the middle of a concentrated flap on one date. Some "muscle" is accumulating for the phenomenon.

The third 14 offers the powerhouse Colusa, CA case with all manner of very high strangeness electrical activity and multiple witnesses. Bill has another personally-investigated incident which was buried in the 1973 Dundurrabin flap. Gaspesian Park, Quebec is one of my "intuitive" favorites.

The fourth page ended my own files as housed in the "High-Strangeness" category plus a few others. I was quite congratulatory of myself for delivering not only the 44 I promised but a few more. Of these, several seem potentially quite good [Bellevue; Dorset; Irlam; San Diego]. I cannot help but to be fascinated by the Cuba case coming from a secret NSA document.

I then decided to make a final page of some of the other odd light cases in the files. As I re-read the cases, it seemed that some of these should probably have been simply listed with the previous 52. Boyup Brook seems like a hollow lighttube; Burkes Flat "just" a weird bending of headlights; Taize some of each. Over-all the listings give a lot to chew on, and wonder what in the heck could be going on?


So, what is? Guess what? I have no clue. Big surprise, eh?

One thing we might say is that these slow light phenomena demonstrate an ability to manipulate things which we do not have. Since enough of the cases are quite strong, it appears that once again we've "proved" that the UFO phenomenon is both real and beyond our own current technological ability. So, perhaps we're not wasting our time thinking about this, even though we're underpowered.

Notice that I said "slow light" phenomena. I believe that this is getting closer to what's happening than calling this "solid light". Light has a velocity. That velocity is altered by the medium through which it passes, but in normal everyday Earth experience, is REALLY quick in our atmosphere. But "these guys" can slow it way down it appears. Even to stopping it.


Now it IS true that our own guys are finding ways to slow light down [by many factors of ten] and even stop it, releasing it to continue on its way with a later light signal stimulus. These experiments usually involve very cold or very hot plasma matter, using unusual elements to boot. So, we're a long way from what "those other guys" can do, but we HAVE demonstrated that the general concept is possible.



But we're a long way from duplicating this in other ways as well. People have been contacted by the beams, and even engulfed. There is no ultra-cold nor ultra-hot sensations. There is no "damage". The few reports report basically nothing at all sensorily --- just the lighttube. And it may be just that: a tube. In other words the lightbeam may be "empty" of the light which we see from the outside [other than minor scatter] and a true hollow tube. It seems almost like it is a ring-laser type of emission, which is somehow controlled in its speed of radiation [it is "slow"], and can be stopped and reversed. The nature of the tube would then be "seen" if at all in the "substance" of the tube wall.


We have almost no reports of persons observing the inside of the tube nor looking at the wall. In the Boyup Brook case, the witness was surprised that the inside seemed empty and he could look up the tube right into the emitting object. In a very obscure case written to the Colorado Project committee, the witness says that he was engulfed in a lighttube, elevated within it, and watched the tube walls on the way up. The walls were composed of "swarms" of very bright areas of scintillation and dark areas of about similar size, which moved dynamically in a chaotic mix all over the insides. This was a very unsophisticated man, who interpreted all of this in religious terms of being taken to a higher spiritual realm surrounded by both angels [of light] and demons [of darkness].


So we don't know what's going on, but have good reason to suspect that the phenomenon is real and technological. Mother Nature DOES make some light pillars Herself when the atmosphere is cold and calm and micro-ice crystals are just the right size and lying horizontally, but even She would be hard-pressed to extend and retract hollow lighttubes. And, I suppose that it isn't really necessary to say this, but the toy "lightsabers" on sale today are nothing more than jumped-up flashlights with connectable telescopic plastic tubes to "contain" the light. The only useful thought that this gives us is that the light-extension in some cases COULD be a material tube extended from the craft which was translucent. That's OK for some cases but not others which contact the witness, engulf them, or otherwise interact in a way inconsistent with a normal physical solid.


A last random thought in this series of embarrassingly random thoughts [but still somewhat fun, so sue me]: when our scientists work with slowing light and consequently manipulating the propagating medium, they are aware that they are "simplifying" some aspects of the medium and what it is encompassing. They are cutting out "noise", and getting better "control" of the space. Maybe that is what "the other guys" are doing with these manipulable light projections too. Maybe it's "safer". Maybe it allows easier anti-gravity work [tractor-beams or elevators?].

Well, I better shut up before public health service employees show up at the door.


Till next time folks.

Watch out for the Blue One... that's the elevator to Outer Proctor.


22 comments:

  1. Timely posting Professor... New Scientist has an article today about the development, still in its infancy, of tractor beams based on Bessel beam ring lasers by scientists Ruffner & Grier at NYU: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22406-tractor-beam-built-from-rings-of-laser-light.html
    Our guys are on it!
    Z.Ninch

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wish I was younger and more energetic. In the old days I'd still be going to AAAS meetings and getting up to speed [no pun intended] on these frontiers. It was a great way to learn from the true frontiersmen.

      Delete
  2. now I know of three types of simple space lives which can generate light beam (it is no surprise that the eel has such ability too). So when people seen a UFO shoot down a light beam, that does not mean it could be a flying saucer.

    http://ufo-spacelife.blogspot.com/2007/11/all-light-beams-are-from-craft.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no idea what this comment means.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. deleted comment was my inaccurate attempt to reply to ZNinch, which landed down here instead. Sorry for the wasted electrons.

      Delete
  4. Have you thought that these might be cosmic strings or a similar emanation? Take a particle, move it through space but view it as time and it'll become a string much like a time lapse photo where folks paint with light. This could be due to a long exposure or an epiphenomenon of saucer propulsion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From what I know about "cosmic strings" I see no connection between that concept and these "slow light" emission technologies. If you know something that actually connects the theory with this data let us know. "Long exposure" doesn't factor into this. These are not photographic cases. My illustrations are only that: illustrations. As to an epiphenomenon of saucer propulsion, these beams are emitted and retracted when the device isn't even moving, and sometimes by occupants rather than craft. {Pardon for this final comment, but did you read the entry and the listed phenomenology? Post doesn't seem well connected to the material presented].

      Delete
  5. This is very tentative, and I'm afraid the cash value of it may be small change, but--

    The general run of these cases seem to me to be not manipulation of light, as such, but some sort of "field" that (sometimes?) excites atmospheric gases to emit light. The field itself can be used to manipulate more-solid objects.

    I wouldn't claim more about this hypothesis than that it's a way to think about these cases (and some others), any maybe make some other hypotheses and unite classifications of seemingly diverse cases. (E.g., do we get beyond mere verbalisms if we hypothesise--and work on the data details--that "mass effect" cases and "slow light" cases are the same technology? Has anyone tried?)

    Frank John Reid

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Frank, your idea [I think that we briefly discussed this earlier one evening at CUFOS] would be worth a follow-up particularly in the following way: the gases of our atmosphere don't just "glow" by excitation any ol' way, but they have very characteristic wavelengths "in" which they emit. The study would be to try to determine as closely as possible what "color" they were glowing, and then see if that matched any known emission phenomenon that we know of from the lab. If found, then one might get some hint about the type of "energy"/field effect used to do whatever "they" are doing. I know that empowered with your education in Philosophy, that you're going to jump right on this :-).

      Delete
    2. I suspect that the tubes and beams work by some other process and the glow is added to make the beam's work visible: it's an elevator with a light, not a grabbing/elevating light.

      So far no one's mentioned an idea from science fiction, call it a robot swarm: a cloud or swarm of tiny machines, each speck fully and precisely mobile in a coordinated way with its fellows, moving about on the electromagnetic fields each particle precisely emits. They form a controlled fabric or web of electromagnetic force, sturdy and stable.

      Each particle acts as a relay station to conduct large and powerful electromagnetic effects. (This is a different approach from conducting electricity directly, which our insulating atmosphere prevents.) This charged airy mass of technology could reconfigure to take all kinds of forms, to compact and extend, to bunch to form a ‘solid’ beam or reshape to be a hollow tube-form.

      I once saw a frog levitated magnetically in a tube: a magnetic field was induced into the frog’s body mass which reflected or re-emitted a second field that opposed the magnetic flux of the tube, lifting the frog up up (but only to the top of the tube, where the lifting force terminated). This was in the late 90s: the scientist said he wanted to levitate a man for the millennium, I don’t think he did, but theoretically the effect could be scaled to lift quite heavy objects (like cars) and they need not be ferrous or even metallic, as our flesh-and-blood frog shows. Apparently the frog felt nothing; the forces canceled out in his body.

      Electricity doesn’t like to flow in our atmosphere, which is a near perfect insulator; only violently high voltage events like lightning can force their way through. The UFO technology has apparently found a way around this, to perform a lot of handy and exotic electromagnetic effects possible in (near) vacuum (such as the vacuum of space).

      For example, as Clarke points out, electricity will –surprisingly- flow much more efficiently through a whiff of charged gas in a vacuum (a plasma that is) than through a solid bar of metal.

      If our atmosphere didn’t get in the way we could have ‘induction beams’, to transmit electrical energy over distances. Our own technology is just starting with this: the current method is to use two parallel laser beams to ionize the air, one weakly and one more strongly, so they become in effect electrical wires, one negative and one positive (the hot ionized one) to deliver electric flow to a target. This is one way a UFO could send a warning zap (and all kinds of more subtle and tricky electrical effects) via a beam (or two).

      (High voltage zaps, like a lightning strike, leave a distinct lightning-bolt-like branching mark on the skin: has anyone ever reported this in a UFO case?)

      Delete
    3. Well, it's all interesting. The post was more about the phenomenon's manifestation as a sawed-off beam of light than an "elevator" per se, but maybe your ideas are part of the larger complexity here. Our crude levitations require having huge force generation and almost being down-and-around the target as far as I know. Then we can set up a polar field in the target [even a frog] and raise it up. This works well in the vertical but horizontally things are out of control. Of course smarter folks than us could figure that out.

      The frog survives not because things "cancel out" in any simple sense of that phrase, but because this technique does not [thankfully] involve a lot of free-running current [like a lot of other sorts of inductions do. It's more similar in the frog levitation to having an MRI, which as we know doesn't electrocute us nor give us epilepsy.

      As to the separate question whether witnesses have been Zapped and the charge left a branching scar... some cases feel "zapped" but there are no such scars to my knowledge. It's a big field of cases though, so I wouldn't say no to anything.

      Delete
  6. Professor, Many alien critters living in the space could emit light beam from their body, according to my 8 years encounter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am sure that you believe what you say, but it, if true, doesn't have anything to do with these cases [most of them anyway], since the majority of these cases involve disk-shaped spacecraft-looking devices from which these slow light beams emerge. Also, there may be organic lifeforms which emit light [fireflies and bioluminescent microorganisms which cause oceanic lightwheels are better examples than your previously cited electric eels], but there are no known organic lifeforms which can control the speed of light that they emit. In fact, there are no known organic lightforms which can emit a "beam" to my knowledge. So I am afraid that your experiences, whatever they are, seem to have nothing to do with this.

      Delete
  7. Professor, this picture from the video that shown an alien bio-thing emitted a light beam.

    http://ufo-spacelife.blogspot.co.nz/2011/10/aliens-mechanic-bio-crafts-have-same.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  11. Please remove my postings. Much obliged. Thank you for the Chiles-Whitted information.

    ReplyDelete

Followers